cocoon-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Sylvain Wallez <sylvain.wal...@anyware-tech.com>
Subject Re: [Woody] woody.js (show) woody2.js (showForm) et al
Date Fri, 17 Oct 2003 12:46:36 GMT
Antonio Gallardo wrote:

>Sylvain Wallez dijo:
>  
>
>>Yep. And posts like Barzilai's one make me wonder if we should stop
>>development in the 2.1 repo and move it over to 2.2 into a new "cforms"
>>(Cocoon forms) block. Note that this doesn't prevent to backport this
>>block to 2.1 before an official 2.2 release if we consider that it has
>>reached some level of stability (including docs).
>>    
>>
>
>-1. I think woody need to get improved even faster than the current trend
>in the current release too. 2.2 is far away and since it will be at a
>stable level this would slowdown the development of woody. :-(
>
>If someone wants to work with a "non-moving target" then there is 2.1.x
>

I guess you misunderstood what I was saying, as you're stating more or 
less my thoughts (if I understand correctly): what I'm suggesting is to 
move the development to the 2.2 repository, but make updates to the 2.1 
repository when we consider to have reached a stable milestone on the 
*cforms block*, and not the entire Cocoon repository.

This would avoid people working with the 2.1 branch to be too much 
disturbed by this moving target. The 2.1 branch will only have steps 
corresponding to the milestones of the continuous development occuring 
in the 2.2 repo.

<snip/>

>I was working in druid - http://druid.sf.net/ for get the boring O/R mapping done by a
Druid generator.
>

This thing is very interesting as, although DB and O/R mappings are not 
Cocoon's concern, having a full working template in Cocoon greatly helps 
people to build complex apps.

>Carlos and Bernardo said the presentation was the best that can happen us right now. They
said me you used a diferent approach in the flows as the one used in the examples. Of course
both works.
>

Do you mean the use of the RequestMethodSelector to choose between 
<map:call function> or <map:call continuation>? This idea comes from 
Bruno's examples using the WoodyAction and I found it very convenient as 
it both avoids the weird look of kont/* URLs and the temptation for the 
user to bookmark a continuation.

Sylvain

-- 
Sylvain Wallez                                  Anyware Technologies
http://www.apache.org/~sylvain           http://www.anyware-tech.com
{ XML, Java, Cocoon, OpenSource }*{ Training, Consulting, Projects }
Orixo, the opensource XML business alliance  -  http://www.orixo.com



Mime
View raw message